[dcolton]

form this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3509556.stm

"You love life and we love death, which gives an example of what the Prophet Muhammad said.

If you don't stop your injustices, more and more blood will flow and these attacks will seem very small compared to what can occur in what you call terrorism."

Now tell me why we shouldn't imprison these scumbags indefinintely again. Tell me why Israel is wrong to respond to homicide attacks with overwhelming force. Tell me why it is wrong to have ZERO (0) sympathy for terrorists and there plight when they make statements like this.

[gadster]

Originally posted by dcolton:
form this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3509556.stm



Now tell me why we shouldn't imprison these scumbags indefinintely again. Tell me why Israel is wrong to respond to homicide attacks with overwhelming force. Tell me why it is wrong to have ZERO (0) sympathy for terrorists and there plight when they make statements like this.

Go for it. See where it gets you. It's like the War on Drugs. There needs to be a rethink. The strategy appears not to be working, as such.

[Millennium]

I do, in fact, have zero sympathy for terrorists. They should be hunted down and exterminated, and if new ones arise, they should be exterminated too. If this creates a cycle, then so be it, until people decide that killing innocents just to make a point is simply not a positive life choice. Those who choose to live by the sword deserve to die by it.

This said, however, Israel's policies have a nasty habit of intentionally punishing the innocent along with the guilty. That must change. As long as their current methods continue, they won't be all that much better -if at all- then the terrorists that they do manage to catch.

[lil'babykitten]

I've read and re-read that statement by a supposed Al-Queda representative. It really doesn't read like their usual statements, especially this part: "You love life and we love death, which gives an example of what the Prophet Muhammad said." It comes across as a badly cobbled together statement.
I dunno...

[dcolton]

It's not my statement. It comes from the BBC.

I guess the point of the thread is how can some of you justify terrorism or blame the Jews or Americans for these murdering scumbags, especially when they make statements like this.

Do you think it is a western conspiracy to put down the Arab man? I just want an understanding. If you think it is a conspiracy, why?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by dcolton:
It's not my statement. It comes from the BBC.

I didn't say it was your statement. Only that the statement *itself* appears forged to me.

Originally posted by dcolton:
I guess the point of the thread is how can some of you justify terrorism or blame the Jews or Americans for these murdering scumbags, especially when they make statements like this.

Do you think it is a western conspiracy to put down the Arab man? I just want an understanding. If you think it is a conspiracy, why?

I haven't seen anybody attempt to justify terrorism here. Rather attempt to understand the roots of the problem. Some of those roots lie in a long history of American interventionist foreign policy in the Middle-East - this includes their blatant bias in favour of the Israeli government which is seen by many Arabs to be oppressing and murdering the Palestinians. I don't think this is a conspiracy - the policy is there for all to see.

Unfortunately, any attempt to try and understand the roots of the problem is construed as justifying the actions of the terrorists. Well I don't wish to. I don't approve of their methods, I think Al Queda would have been far more successful if it had pursued it's aims through legal political process.

[registered_user]

Well, If we conquer all of the world and unite it under one flag, we can stomp out terrorism. It almost worked for the Ottomans and for Rome and then Germany, but I think we just might get it right by lulling our "allies" into complacency until it's too late.

Or, we can mind our own business and keep our soldiers within our own borders.

Tough call. But I'm gonna go with option #2.

No offense, but I'd blow your **** up too if you tried to run my life -- and I wouldn't call it terrorism.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I haven't seen anybody attempt to justify terrorism here.
Rather attempt to understand the roots of the problem. Some of those roots lie in a long history of American interventionist foreign policy in the Middle-East - this includes their blatant bias in favour of the Israeli government which is seen by many Arabs to be oppressing and murdering the Palestinians. I don't think this is a conspiracy - the policy is there for all to see.

No the root is these people are being lied to and taught it's GOOD to murder yourself and others.

THAT is the root of the problem.

Unfortunately, any attempt to try and understand the roots of the problem is construed as justifying the actions of the terrorists. Well I don't wish to. I don't approve of their methods, I think Al Queda would have been far more successful if it had pursued it's aims through legal political process.

No, it's trying to blame America's policy on Israel for their actions. Which is totally BUNK.

Again, the problem isn't America's ties with Israel.

The problem is the culture these people are being taught.

[dcolton]

Tolerating and making excuses for murder is justifying terrorism. To say that it is America's fault for having interests and intervening in the ME is justifying terrorism and fuels their agenda of death. To claim discrimination as a root cause for murder in Israel is a way pf justifying terrorism.

IMO, you either stand up against terrorism and proclaim it is a vile and disguisting act of hate and war, or you try to understand *why*.

Someone sent a video to the press. You (kitty)claim it to be suspect, so you already have some sort of notion that there is a conspiracy of some sort against whom? Terrorists? Arabs? Palestine?

I am trying to understand as well, but those who defend, justify, tolerate, or ignore the actions of terrorist organizations never give any reasons why this phenomenon is occuring.

[Zimphire]

Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah
'We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.'"

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
form this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3509556.stm



Now tell me why we shouldn't imprison these scumbags indefinintely again.

What scumbags? If you find the right guys I wouldn't care if you locked them up indefinately. But first you'll have to tell me who you want to lock up.

Tell me why Israel is wrong to respond to homicide attacks with overwhelming force.

Because it kills innocent civilians. Israelis don't like it when innocent civilians are slaughtered and Palestinians don't like it when innocent civilians are slaughtered.

Tell me why it is wrong to have ZERO (0) sympathy for terrorists and there plight when they make statements like this.

Who has said that is wrong?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
Because it kills innocent civilians. Israelis don't like it when innocent civilians are slaughtered and Palestinians don't like it when innocent civilians are slaughtered.

Then why don't the Palestinians get together and hunt these groups down? I have seen ZERO action against these groups.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

No the root is these people are being lied to and taught it's GOOD to murder yourself and others.

THAT is the root of the problem.

That statement is bullsh1t to begin with, but lets say that was the case - you're still not at the root of the problem. The people 'teaching lies and telling people to murder others' are obviously pissed off about something - the question you need to ask is why?

[Spliffdaddy]

no we don't.

Not sure anyone cares why somebody else is an idiot.

If you can understand a terrorist you're already one.

[John F. Smith]

maybe if Israel and Palestine were ruled by more women like these, the problem would be solved.

just a thought

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
no we don't.

Not sure anyone cares why somebody else is an idiot.

If you can understand a terrorist you're already one.

Does it matter who the terrorist is?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
That statement is bullsh1t to begin with, but lets say that was the case - you're still not at the root of the problem. The people 'teaching lies and telling people to murder others' are obviously pissed off about something - the question you need to ask is why?

People are pissed off unjustly about a lot of things. You are again trying to blame the US for their actions.

NO. The problem is the teachings these people are being taught. Not how the US is dealing with Israel.

When you close your eyes to the root of the problem (Palestinians being brainwashed by animalistic haters) you'll never see a change.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Tolerating and making excuses for murder is justifying terrorism. To say that it is America's fault for having interests and intervening in the ME is justifying terrorism and fuels their agenda of death. To claim discrimination as a root cause for murder in Israel is a way pf justifying terrorism.

No it's not - it is an attempt to understand why they do it. You advocate killing all the terrorists which only serves to create more and make them more determined.

Originally posted by dcolton:
Someone sent a video to the press. You (kitty)claim it to be suspect, so you already have some sort of notion that there is a conspiracy of some sort against whom? Terrorists? Arabs? Palestine?

I think it's quite possible that ETA took advantage of the fact that AQ is very much at the forefront of the international agenda and media and thus passed the blame. It's a possibility, it may very well be AQ. No body knows for certain yet.

Originally posted by dcolton:
I am trying to understand as well, but those who defend, justify, tolerate, or ignore the actions of terrorist organizations never give any reasons why this phenomenon is occuring.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
If you can understand a terrorist you're already one.

Does that include Ronnie "I am a Contra!" Reagan?

The following is from a speech by John Stockwell--a former CIA big shot who managed covert ops in Angola in the early 70's before he resigned and became a dissident.

What this is is a technique of destabilization. In covert action, you call it destabilization. You have a target: a government that you don't like. You pick a country you're going to go after. The reasons are quite whimsical. We go after a country for a while, and if it doesn't work, sometimes we wind up being friends with them. They pick a government. They target them. They send the CIA in with its resources and its activists: hiring people, hiring agents to tear apart the social and economic fabric of the country. It's a technique for putting pressure on the government, hoping they can make the government come to the U.S.'s terms, or that the government will collapse altogether and they can engineer a coup d'etat, and have the thing wind up with their own choice of people in power.

Now ripping apart the economic and social fabric is fairly textbookish. What we're talking about is going in and deliberately creating conditions where the farmer can't get his produce to market; where children can't go to school; where women are terrified inside their homes as well as outside; where government administered programs grind to a complete halt; where the hospitals are treating wounded people instead of sick people; where international capital is scared away and the country goes bankrupt.

If you ask the State Department today what is their official explanation of the purpose of the Contras, they say, it is to attack economic targets, meaning, break up the economy of the country. Of course, they're attacking a lot more.

To destabilize Nicaragua, beginning in 1981, we began funding this force of Somoza's ex-National Guardsmen, calling them the Contras, the counter-revolutionaries. We created this force, which did not exist until we allocated money. We armed them. We put uniforms on their backs and boots on their feet, gave them camps in Honduras to live in, medical supplies, doctors, training, leadership, direction, as we sent them in to destabilize Nicaragua. Under our direction, they have been systematically blowing up bridges, sawmills, graneries, government offices, schools, health centers. They ambush trucks so the produce can't get to market. They raid farms and villages. The farmer has to carry a gun while he tries to plow, if he can plow at all.

If you want one example of hard proof of the CIA's involvement in this and their approach to it, dig up the "Sabotage Manual" that they were circulating throughout Nicaragua: a comic-book type of a paper, with visual explanations of what you can do to bring a society to a halt: how you can gum up typewriters; what you can pour in a gas tank to burn up engines; what you can stuff in a sewer to stop up the sewage so it won't work -- things you can do to make a society simply cease to function.

Systematically, the Contras have been assassinating religious workers, teachers, health workers, elected officials, government administrators. Remember the "Assassination Manual" that surfaced in 1984? It caused such a stir that President Reagan had to address it himself in the presidential debates with Walter Mondale. (linky) They use terror to traumatize society so that it cannot function.

I don't mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your Government and its agents are doing.

They go into villages. They haul out families. With the children forced to watch, they castrate the father. They peel the skin off his face. They put a grenade in his mouth, and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch, they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes, for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children.

This is nobody's propaganda !

There have been over a hundred thousand American "Witnesses for Peace" who've gone down there, and they have filmed and photographed and witnessed these atrocities immediately after they've happened, and documented thirteen thousand people killed this way -- mostly women and children.

These are the activites done by the Contras. The Contras are the people President Reagan called "freedom fighters." He said: "They are the moral equivalent of our founding fathers."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
That statement is bullsh1t to begin with, but lets say that was the case - you're still not at the root of the problem. The people 'teaching lies and telling people to murder others' are obviously pissed off about something - the question you need to ask is why?

So what was it these guys were so pissed off about? Does anybody give a flying rat's ass?

Why don't you go waste your time figuring it out.

Did hunting down, killing and arresting these clowns only serve to create more and more of them? Well gee whiz, by that logic the US must be overflowing with them today.

All this useless crap about 'understanding the terrorists' is just such a load of horse-hockey. It's not all that hard to understand- they blame their problems, failings and inadequacies on a targeted group, focus extreme hatred on their enemies and seek to terrorize and kill them.

There's not any big world of difference between a Klansman and the 'root causes' of his hatred, and some al Qaeda or Hamas asshole.

Go to a rally of any of these types of nitwits and see how far you get hanging around trying to 'unnnnnnnderstand the rooooooot causes' of their hatred. If you make it back alive or at the very least with all your body parts intact, please tell us what you figured out the hard way that wasn't painfully obvious to anyone else who isn’t hopelessly naïve and has a brain that functions.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:

heh. Try making a valid comparison next time. Better yet don't bother - you can't refute my statements without attacking my intelligence. Therefore kindly **** off.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

So in other words, just pretending you understand some stupid 'root' cause of why someone seeks to terrorize someone else is meaningless bullcrap and doesn't do a THING in the real world to stop REAL terrorists?

Thought so.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
So in other words, just pretending you understand some stupid 'root' cause of why someone seeks to terrorize someone else is meaningless bullcrap and doesn't do a THING in the real world to stop REAL terrorists?

Yeah cos bombing the **** out of a cave stops 'REAL' terrorists. Gimme a break.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Yeah cos bombing the **** out of a cave stops 'REAL' terrorists. Gimme a break.

If they were in it at the time it sure as hell does!

I guess it does depend on how good they are at breathing with no oxygen and digging out from under tons of rock though...

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
If they were in it at the time it sure as hell does!

Oh yeah?! What about the sons/friends/daughters/parents/whoever of the terrorist that decide to retaliate? Bomb them too right? and then their sons/friends/etc etc, yeah? Keep going round in the cycle? Does that solve the problem? I think not.

[nonhuman]

Stopping terrorists is not the same thing as stopping terrorism. They are completely different. All we have done so far is to work to stop terrorists.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
All we have done so far is to work to stop terrorists.

And we can't even manage that!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Oh yeah?! What about the sons/friends/daughters/parents/whoever of the terrorist that decide to retaliate? Bomb them too right? and then their sons/friends/etc etc, yeah? Keep going round in the cycle? Does that solve the problem? I think not.

You mean the way the sons/daughters/parents/whoever of the KKK decided to retaliate against those that fought the Klan? Yup, there's just more KKK today than anybody knows what to do with! Gee, such an endless cycle.

Oh I know- if there's a cave full of terrorists, we should go in and politely excuse ourselves and ask them what their root cause is, and seek understanding.

"So wait a second Mr. Militant Islamic Terrorist. So you're telling me that your root cause is that you... now correct me if I'm misquoting here... you don't much like Jews, that there's a state of Israel, the US and westerners."

"That's about it. I think that about covers it. Yup."

"Um.. what about some in-depth DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP geo-political intellectual reason that my Jr. City College class taught me you must have?"

"Eh? I'm sorry... geo poli-whaaa?"

"Sheesh. This is as disappointing as my 'root causes of the Klan' interview. According to them, they just didn't much like non-whites and Jews..."

"I could make something up if you like..."

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
You mean the way the sons/daughters/parents/whoever of the KKK decided to retaliate against those that fought the Klan? Yup, there's just more KKK today than anybody knows what to do with! Gee, such an endless cycle.

Oh I know- if there's a cave full of terrorists, we should go in and politely excuse ourselves and ask them what their root cause is, and seek understanding.

"So wait as second Mr. Militant Islamic Terrorist. So you're telling me that your root cause is that you... now correct me if I'm misquoting here... you don't much like Jews, that there's a state of Israel, the US and westerners."

"That's about it. Yup."

"Um.. what about some in-depth DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP geo-political intellectual reason that my Jr. City College class taught me you must have?"

"Eh? I'm sorry... geo poli-whaaa?"

"Sheesh. This is as disappointing as my 'root causes of the Klan' interview. According to them, they just didn't much like non-whites and Jews..."

"I could make something up if you like..."

LOL! That is a very simplistic explanation - but it has some comedic value. Like I said the KKK and AQ are not comparable. But, if those attempting to fight terrorism continue as they do I'm pretty sure they will fail - they already are failing.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
[B]LOL! That is a very simplistic explanation

Well I left out the fact that you would get a lot of psychobabble from both about Jewish world domination conspiracies and how this group or that group was out to get them, and how they were each the most persecuted and picked on bunch that ever walked the face of the earth and how resorting to terror was therefore justified for them... but I boiled it down to the basics for you.

Like I said the KKK and AQ are not comparable.

How so? What great redeeming quality does one have that the other doesn't? Which group is more legit? Why?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
How so? What great redeeming quality does one have that the other doesn't? Which group is more legit? Why?

I don't think it's helpful to apply the same explanation to every type of terrorist group out there. They are contextual and are formed under differing circumstances with different ideologies. I don't think any of them have 'redeeming' qualities over the other, just that ideologically, culturally, religiously or politically they differ. To understand their thought process you need to consider them individually and specifically because this helps you combat them.

I wouldn't say any terrorist group was legit precisely because of their use of violence. They'd probably be more successful if they went through the legal political processes of expression.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I didn't say it was your statement. Only that the statement *itself* appears forged to me.



I haven't seen anybody attempt to justify terrorism here. Rather attempt to understand the roots of the problem. Some of those roots lie in a long history of American interventionist foreign policy in the Middle-East - this includes their blatant bias in favour of the Israeli government which is seen by many Arabs to be oppressing and murdering the Palestinians. I don't think this is a conspiracy - the policy is there for all to see.

Unfortunately, any attempt to try and understand the roots of the problem is construed as justifying the actions of the terrorists. Well I don't wish to. I don't approve of their methods, I think Al Queda would have been far more successful if it had pursued it's aims through legal political process.

I can only agree with that, except in terms of the legal process. Some nations have definitively decided to evade it. Which makes some people feel that some people do not want to be made accountable...

Not much better than terrorists...

[BRussell]

I'm a psychologist, so I'll give a good psychobabble explanation for bin Laden's terrorism.

A psychologist named Roy Baumeister has a nice theory of aggressive behavior based on ego-threat. He says people are most likely to be aggressive when they have a very high image of themselves, but then that ego is challenged in some way. So the loser guy in West Podunka who think he's God's gift is more likely to beat his wife when his ego is threatened in some way. Basically, aggressive people are narcissists who confront reality.

I think this applies to Islamic terrorism of the bin Laden variety. These people see Islam as the greatest culture in the world. They think back about the good old days, 600 years ago, when they really were the leading culture on the planet. Spain is a good target for this very reason - it used to be dominated by Islamic culture. But what happened? Now the Middle East is one of the most backward places on the planet, economically and culturally. The US can take over Iraq, one of the great Islamic nations, just by shouting "boo!" They're poor, they're hated, they have little influence over the world, they're incapable of serious military action, etc. etc. It must really suck to realize that if you think you should be the greatest culture on the planet. So they lash out at the world that is so unfair to them.

So, let's try to understand them. And then let's kill them.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by registered_user:
Well, If we conquer all of the world and unite it under one flag, we can stomp out terrorism. It almost worked for the Ottomans and for Rome and then Germany, but I think we just might get it right by lulling our "allies" into complacency until it's too late.

Or, we can mind our own business and keep our soldiers within our own borders.

Tough call. But I'm gonna go with option #2.

No offense, but I'd blow your **** up too if you tried to run my life -- and I wouldn't call it terrorism.

I would like to add that if someone was to make my Dictator richer (therefore more powerful to oppress me, hurt me, abuse me, shame me, diminish me) I would react just the same as soon as I would have an opportunity to make myself "understood".

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I don't think it's helpful to apply the same explanation to every type of terrorist group out there. They are contextual and are formed under differing circumstances with different ideologies. I don't think any of them have 'redeeming' qualities over the other, just that ideologically, culturally, religiously or politically they differ.

And absolutely none of this is to say they aren't comparable.

Both use extreme religious intolerances based on bastardizations and misreadings of religious texts as excuses for their actions. Both use (and allow to be used for them) the excuse that they are the most picked on people that ever walked the earth, therefore 'helpless' people can resort to anything. Both would probably like everyone to believe there’s really a whole huge plethora of ‘deep’ rationale behind them, and have people wasting time spinning their wheels on that, rather than combat them unsympathetically as the bunch of uneducated, shallow, hateful thugs they actually are, who really don’t have much ‘depth’ in either their causes nor the thought processes that they use to justify their actions. The list goes on, but the point is, they’re perfectly comparable.

To understand their thought process you need to consider them individually and specifically because this helps you combat them.

They need to be 'understood' only up to the point of figuring out where and when they will likely try to strike next, and preventing them from doing so. The same as when detectives speak of 'getting into the mind' of a serial killer or other criminal. The point is to stop them, not justify them. Going a single step beyond that sort of understanding, toward a level of paying lip service to the bullshiite that either type of group cites as the reason for being terrorists, is just useless nonsense, ala: "Oh wait, maybe if those [Jews, blacks gays, westerners etc.] would just stop doing thus and such, and thinking this and that, they won't bring this hatred on themselves so much..."

I wouldn't say any terrorist group was legit precisely because of their use of violence. They'd probably be more successful if they went through the legal political processes of expression.

Personally I'm not wringing my hands for any terrorist group to become more successful, through whatever means.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
And absolutely none of this is to say they aren't comparable.

Both use extreme religious intolerances based on bastardizations and misreadings of religious texts as excuses for their actions. Both use (and allow to be used for them) the excuse that they are the most picked on people that ever walked the earth, therefore 'helpless' people can resort to anything. Both would probably like everyone to believe there’s really a whole huge plethora of ‘deep’ rationale behind them, and have people wasting time spinning their wheels on that, rather than combat them unsympathetically as the bunch of uneducated, shallow, hateful thugs they actually are, who really don’t have much ‘depth’ in either their causes nor the thought processes that they use to justify their actions. The list goes on, but the point is, they’re perfectly comparable.

This is a matter of opinion. I think they need to be examined separately and in the context of their situation before you can decide whether they really are uneducated and shallow or whether it goes further.

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
They need to be 'understood' only up to the point of figuring out where and when they will likely try to strike next, and preventing them from doing so. The same as when detectives speak of 'getting into the mind' of a serial killer or other criminal. The point is to stop them, not justify them. Going a single step beyond that sort of understanding, toward a level of paying lip service to the bullshiite that either type of group cites as the reason for being terrorists, is just useless nonsense, ala: "Oh wait, maybe if those [Jews, blacks gays, westerners etc.] would just stop doing thus and such, and thinking this and that, they won't bring this hatred on themselves so much..."

Your method for combatting terrorism is an endless cycle. It will only continue indefinitely. You can't ever expect to achieve a 100% terrorist prevention rate with your methods.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

This is a matter of opinion. I think they need to be examined separately and in the context of their situation before you can decide whether they really are uneducated and shallow or whether it goes further.

I hate to tell you, but ANYONE who justifies terror as a means to get anything other than violent retaliation, is shallow, and in many ways uneducated in terms of an actual non-delusional sense of how the world works.

"Gee, you mean if I bomb innocents, someone will actually come after me with a whole lot of hardware that can kill me, and the net result will be that life gets continually WORSE for me, my ‘people’, and my cause… not better?"

"Gee, ya think?"

Your method for combatting terrorism is an endless cycle. It will only continue indefinitely. You can't ever expect to achieve a 100% terrorist prevention rate with your methods.

You keep saying that, but ignoring the fact that terror groups HAVE been stopped in their tracks before, and made less powerful if not all but non-existent through efforts to arrest, kill and wipe them out financially. (All tools of the war on terror). Those groups have NOT become more powerful and plentiful as a result.

And such has NEVER been achieved via some naïve exercise in 'let's understand them'.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
You mean the way the sons/daughters/parents/whoever of the KKK decided to retaliate against those that fought the Klan? Yup, there's just more KKK today than anybody knows what to do with! Gee, such an endless cycle.
(...)
"I could make something up if you like..."

Let me make something up from http://www.census.gov/prod/www/stati...stract-03.html

Especially this document:http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/pop.pdf

Look at Table No. 62.

Please let me orient you. The number of total mariages between White men and Black women is always lower than half, if not a third of the total number of marriages between Black men and White women. That has been steady since 1980.

Now let's look at table 347, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/law.pdf

The number of White inmates, from 1990 to 2001 is always inferior by a third of the total number of non-White inmates.

Yet, the population of White people compared to any other "race" altogether is extremely important (close to 8 times!!!).

Granted, The Klan does not exist anymore, but something is not so clear with he status of people and their "races"...

Now, who are you going to fight about that? And what kind of bomb will you use?

Just curious...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Let me make something up from http://www.census.gov/prod/www/stati...stract-03.html

Especially this document:http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/pop.pdf

Look at Table No. 62.

Please let me orient you. The number of total mariages between White men and Black women is always lower than half, if not a third of the total number of marriages between Black men and White women. That has been steady since 1980.

Now let's look at table 347, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/law.pdf

The number of White inmates, from 1990 to 2001 is always inferior by a third of the total number of non-White inmates.

Yet, the population of White people compared to any other "race" altogether is extremely important (close to 8 times!!!).

Granted, The Klan does not exist anymore, but something is not so clear with he status of people and their "races"...

Now, who are you going to fight about that? And what kind of bomb will you use?

Just curious...

What the hell are you blabbering about?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
What the hell are you blabbering about?

Well, I am using your KKK example.

Did you not write:

Did hunting down, killing and arresting these clowns only serve to create more and more of them? Well gee whiz, by that logic the US must be overflowing with them today.

As I said, the KKK is gone, but seems like its legacy has not disappeared completely yet!

I thought you would have enjoyed my example; 'cause I would like to encourage you to use the means you propose for terrorists abroad for the people who oppressed Americans in America.

I mean, there are clearly inequalities maintained, and this disproportion of treatment (jailing, much lower integration of Black women) of the "races" is clearly a form of terrorism, as defined by an attack to innocent for political motives. I did not bring the stats on life expectancy; you do that OK?

Because I do not think people of colour ("race" if you insist although this term is pretty unpleasant) are treated equally (your point against the KKK proves we agree closely you and me since the KKK was forbidding access of all opportunities of success but to the non-White Protestants) in America.

The statistics of your government's census shows clearly that there are still inequalities...

I'll grant you this; it has improved big time. And certainly, that does not make Americans racists, or any other countries more or less racist either.

But I think there are a few things that need to be "understood" before doing some action...
Don't you think?

And do not call me a sympathizer of terrorists: I certainly appreciate my colleagues at work whether they are Arabic or Americans. And certainly hope the villains (the terrorists) to be facing justice.

But I also want to make sure everything is done to prevent that useless and babaric violence to happen again. So far, I have seen none of that but more blood shed.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by angaq0k:

Well, I am using your KKK example.


As I said, the KKK is gone, but seems like its legacy has not disappeared completely yet!

And were that the case, some pretense at 'understanding' them would automagically change anything?

I thought you would have enjoyed my example; 'cause I would like to encourage you to use the means you propose for terrorists abroad for the people who oppressed Americans in America.

Well if you mean am I in favor of dropping MOABs and smart bombs on cave-dwelling Klansmen were we to see such a thing take root anew in this country? Well let me go out on a limb here... SURE!

I mean, there are clearly inequalities maintained, and this disproportion of treatment (jailing, much lower integration of Black women) of the "races" is clearly a form of terrorism, as defined by an attack to innocent for political motives. I did not bring the stats on life expectancy; you do that OK?

...the hell?

Because ... [snip] but more blood shed.

After several readings, not quite sure I got all that, but basically are you saying that inequalities blacks still face are some form of KKK continued revenge through some sort of tranfer of their ideals to the rest of society?

Well if that is what you're saying- I will agree there's a definite parallel with a society's willingness to put up with terrorists (and therefore buy into their ideas) or not. 30, 40+ years ago you'd have found many supposedly 'upstanding' people in this nation that would think nothing of harboring, aiding, abetting, lying for and encouraging Klansmen despite any consequences.

Today I think you'd be far less likely to find all that many, though certainly the occasianal nutcase. The attitudes of our society have largely changed. But are there lingering effects of racism that used to be far more prevalent here? Of course. I'm not sure I'd say its to the total extent you seem to be trying to map out, but to some extent of course.

All the more reason in my book to fight terror groups and the attitudes they spread SOONER, rather than later, because obviously the change in mental attitudes of the societies that allow them to exist in the first place takes a long time.

In many places in the Middle East, I feel there are still far too many people who put up with the likes of Hamas and al Qaeda and are willing to harbor, aide, abet, and lie for them despite the consequences. That too needs to change. It'll take time. It'll also have to come from within their own societies. It's one change of many that the 'big bad west' can't make for them.

[voyageur]

There doesn't seem to be a clean way of removing terrorists without killing many innocent people, and also potentially turning more people into terrorists. We have done this to an extent in Iraq.

I would like to think that just by positive actions toward countries that produce terrorists, the West could greatly reduce terrorism. But I wonder if now there is so much hatred towards the West, that this hope is not realistic. If the US could/would stop their aggression, would/could the religious and political leaders of the Muslim world now be able to say "enough is enough" to their own people as well? And would it have any effect? Lil'BabyKitten, what do you think?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm a psychologist, so I'll give a good psychobabble explanation for bin Laden's terrorism.

A psychologist named Roy Baumeister has a nice theory of aggressive behavior based on ego-threat. He says people are most likely to be aggressive when they have a very high image of themselves, but then that ego is challenged in some way. So the loser guy in West Podunka who think he's God's gift is more likely to beat his wife when his ego is threatened in some way. Basically, aggressive people are narcissists who confront reality.

I think this applies to Islamic terrorism of the bin Laden variety. These people see Islam as the greatest culture in the world. They think back about the good old days, 600 years ago, when they really were the leading culture on the planet. Spain is a good target for this very reason - it used to be dominated by Islamic culture. But what happened? Now the Middle East is one of the most backward places on the planet, economically and culturally. The US can take over Iraq, one of the great Islamic nations, just by shouting "boo!" They're poor, they're hated, they have little influence over the world, they're incapable of serious military action, etc. etc. It must really suck to realize that if you think you should be the greatest culture on the planet. So they lash out at the world that is so unfair to them.

So, let's try to understand them. And then let's kill them.

*adds that post to this year's top-10 list*

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm a psychologist, so I'll give a good psychobabble explanation for bin Laden's terrorism.

A psychologist named Roy Baumeister has a nice theory of aggressive behavior based on ego-threat. He says people are most likely to be aggressive when they have a very high image of themselves, but then that ego is challenged in some way. So the loser guy in West Podunka who think he's God's gift is more likely to beat his wife when his ego is threatened in some way. Basically, aggressive people are narcissists who confront reality.

I think this applies to Islamic terrorism of the bin Laden variety. These people see Islam as the greatest culture in the world. They think back about the good old days, 600 years ago, when they really were the leading culture on the planet. Spain is a good target for this very reason - it used to be dominated by Islamic culture. But what happened? Now the Middle East is one of the most backward places on the planet, economically and culturally. The US can take over Iraq, one of the great Islamic nations, just by shouting "boo!" They're poor, they're hated, they have little influence over the world, they're incapable of serious military action, etc. etc. It must really suck to realize that if you think you should be the greatest culture on the planet. So they lash out at the world that is so unfair to them.

So, let's try to understand them. And then let's kill them.

Gr8 post.

[James Christ]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:

That's Ashcroft on the right. I don't know who the guy on the left is but he's definitely not left wing.

[James Christ]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I've read and re-read that statement by a supposed Al-Queda representative. It really doesn't read like their usual statements, especially this part: "You love life and we love death, which gives an example of what the Prophet Muhammad said." It comes across as a badly cobbled together statement.
I dunno...

What struck me with it is the lack of PBUH after Muhammed's name. A fanatic can't leave that out. Also, I would have expected them to say 'You love killing Iraqi babies and for that we will die for them.' rather than 'You love life'. It sounds completely fake, like a badly forged terrorist statement.

A terrorist never says 'You love life.'. It only makes their struggle look silly to their own followers.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by BRussell:
A psychologist named Roy Baumeister has a nice theory of aggressive behavior based on ego-threat. He says people are most likely to be aggressive when they have a very high image of themselves, but then that ego is challenged in some way. So the loser guy in West Podunka who think he's God's gift is more likely to beat his wife when his ego is threatened in some way. Basically, aggressive people are narcissists who confront reality.

Would not this amazingly simplistic psychological reductionism apply just as well to the United States (particularly the current administration's policiy of pre-emption) as it does to sick ****s like OBL and Hussein? In fact, it seems to me that anyone who actively seeks out a position of power with the ability to enact fundamental political policies, whether county alderman or president of the USA or tyrannical dictator, will be aggressive on some basic level. Let's face it, aggression is our birthright. If it weren't for aggression, we would not have been so successful a product of evolution. The meek may inherit the earth, but the aggressors have it now and will have it for a long time to come. Of course, there is a lot to say for mutualism, cooperation, and altruism in the context of species evolution, but i think aggression plays a major role in our evolutionary success. That being said, I feel its pretty ridiculous to think we can eliminate terrorism. Particularly so when the world's most vehement advocate of eliminating terrorism is so often involved (covertly or otherise) in its propogation (with an excellent example above from T-F). Terrorism is not new and its probably here to stay. Of course, there are measures we can take to dampen its effects, but I don't think destroying current terrorists is the answer. Someone will always have a bone to pick. We should probably be focusing more on systemic weaknesses that terrorists can exploit.

Ultimatly, though, if you're an american citizen and you're really concerned about terrorism, you might want to examine your priorities. It's no comfort to those who have endured the tragedy of loss caused by terrorist acts, but americans are in virtually zero danger of being killed by terrorists. Even if you were among the very few people who lived or worked in new york city on 9-11-2001 (about 4% of the american populace), the odds of being killed by terrorists that day were about a 100th of a percent. highly unlikely. This is probably not going to make me any friends among the ultra-nationalists on this board, but that's the price you pay for being rational.


Just a thought...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by James Christ:
That's Ashcroft on the right. I don't know who the guy on the left is but he's definitely not left wing.

Sorry, actually there's a 99.99999% chance they were both registered Democrats.

Possibly Senator Byrd, or Al Gore's daddy? Clinton's mentor perhaps?

Who knows.

But one thing is for sure, it's kinda desperate and sad when Dems try to pawn off their party's KKK past!

[theolein]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:


So what was it these guys were so pissed off about? Does anybody give a flying rat's ass?

Why don't you go waste your time figuring it out.

Did hunting down, killing and arresting these clowns only serve to create more and more of them? Well gee whiz, by that logic the US must be overflowing with them today.

All this useless crap about 'understanding the terrorists' is just such a load of horse-hockey. It's not all that hard to understand- they blame their problems, failings and inadequacies on a targeted group, focus extreme hatred on their enemies and seek to terrorize and kill them.

There's not any big world of difference between a Klansman and the 'root causes' of his hatred, and some al Qaeda or Hamas asshole.

Go to a rally of any of these types of nitwits and see how far you get hanging around trying to 'unnnnnnnderstand the rooooooot causes' of their hatred. If you make it back alive or at the very least with all your body parts intact, please tell us what you figured out the hard way that wasn't painfully obvious to anyone else who isn’t hopelessly naïve and has a brain that functions.

Given that the KKK is still active in parts of the US today and is still not above holding an occasional cross burning, perhaps you'ld like to restate that what you said above. The KKK were in no way hunted down and killed. That is BS, and you know it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by theolein:
Given that the KKK is still active in parts of the US today and is still not above holding an occasional cross burning, perhaps you'ld like to restate that what you said above.

No, I stand by it. The KKK has virtually no real power in the US any longer. Of course there's a few around, but few take them seriously. The leftist spin is that by combating terror, you just create more of it, yet there are examples where terrorist groups have been stopped and it didn't create more and more of them.


There's probably no more KKK in the US than Europe is still crawling with Nazis.

Oh yeah by the way it was force and not some bull$hit 'understanding' and ‘let’s talk it over’ that ended that reign of terror also.

The KKK were in no way hunted down and killed. That is BS, and you know it.

The KKK was actually hounded nearly out of existence in the late 1880's and 1890's by fed up officials both state and local that did just that- jailed and on many occasions killed them and generally made it very unattractive to be a Klan member. As a result, the Klan split into small underground factions and were fairly powerless thereafter.

They had a revival around 1915, aided largely by a public endorsement by no less than Woodrow Wilson (I guess he was one of those 'understanding Democrats' eh?). They reached their zenith of power in the 1920's.

By the late 50's and 60's when the FBI and others finally did start to go after them, and yes Virginia, by arresting them, hunting down those that took part in high profile terror acts like bombings and assassinations, and yes, on many occasions killing them, they were disbanded again into the fairly obscure bunch of no-power nobodies that the remaining few stragglers comprise.

At no point, no matter what you'd like to try and float, was some phony 'understanding' of them ever an effective tool against their terror. However force, including deadly force when it was used, taking their money, jailing them and going for convictions against their leaders was QUITE effective.

Just as taking the kid gloves off has a proven track record of ending groups like the Klan, of toppling oppressive regimes, so too can it combat modern terror.

So the left can push for the “I feel their pain” approach, and leave the actual battle against terror to those with a more realistic approach.